Read Pine box primitives without confusing them with manual chart drawings.
Read Pine box primitives without confusing them with manual chart drawings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| entity_id | No | ||
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is provided elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about whether the target tab is required, whether results come from the live chart or a saved layout, or how pagination behaves — notable because target_id is annotated "Required for changes" yet this is a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with zero filler and the disambiguation front and center. It is efficiently written, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Five parameters, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage means the description should explain the return shape and the pagination/scoping semantics — it explains neither. For a read tool whose data model (box primitives) is non-obvious, one disambiguation sentence is not enough to call it safely or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description carries real burden for limit, offset, and entity_id — and it says nothing about any of them. It does not clarify whether entity_id scopes to a chart object or a script, nor what ordering limit/offset apply to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb+resource ("Read Pine box primitives") and does distinguish the data from manual chart drawings, which is a useful boundary against a large family of drawing_* siblings. But "primitives" is jargon and the description never says what a box record actually contains or returns, so an agent still has to guess at the payload shape.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance is negative framing — don't confuse with manual chart drawings — with no positive when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative tool to use instead. Siblings like drawing_list and data_get_pine_lines are present but none are routed to explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.